Global Cooling

[ScreamingEagle]

A Mini Ice Age to Start about 10-20 years from now:

Global Cooling deniers!
11 August 2007

The eco-cult of the Globaloney-warming true-believers ignores reality. If the earth is warming than why are winters in various parts of the globe becoming colder, more violent and more prone to defy weekly forecasts let alone millennium forecasts? To deny Global Cooling is criminal. Where are the experts to demand [like they did in 1975] that we only have 5 years to solve this Global Cooling crisis! Global Cooling deniers are worse than holocaust deniers. By denying the cooling trends they will cause the next ice age which will kill our children; destroy the earth goddess Gaia; and make the UN and Al Gore look like idiots [easy enough to do however]. Where is the outrage!

This year from Kansas, to British Columbia, to New York State to parts of Europe, the winter of 2007 is the worst in a long while. Backtrack a few years ago and cold records were set in Russia, Eastern Europe, and North Africa. If Global warming is supposed to have us all cooking in a human created microwave why is this happening? Why is the earth’s average mean temperature still around 14C today – the same as it was 120 years ago and why are winters literally all over the map and in many places getting colder and worse, not warmer and brighter?

The reality which deeply disturbs the chattering eco-fascists and mindless Marxist engineers who want to control and regulate, is that the earth has climate cycles and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. In what passes for UN and Al Gorean ‘science’ [ie. look outside and see if it is hot today], Global Cooling has more of a claim for our collective attention than Global Warming. In the vote between cooling and warming, the natural climate cycle seems to be voting for the deep freeze. My guess is that we will all be running for the equator in front of fast moving ice-sheets long before we are dropping dead from heat exhaustion.

Remember London in 1975? It snowed. How about Moscow in June 2003? I was there – it also snowed. Detroit in the first week of October 2006? Earliest recorded snowfall in the car-city. In Jerusalem during December 2006? Largest recorded snow-fall in the city of contemplation. Global warming? You don’t say.

How about in Europe that great bastion of eco fascist Global Warming baloney?

“The winter of 2003 in the Northern Hemisphere broke all records in freezing temperatures, and the ice in Finland came 15 days earlier than usual….Astrophysicists predict a new Double Minimum (Gleissberg) for the year 2030, a solar condition that will have a freezing influence on Earth, taking temperatures down to the same as those of the Little Ice Age of 1610 onwards, when the Double Maunder and Spörer Minima occurred.”

cont.
http://pr-gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7665&Itemid=9

It’s Time to Worry about Global COOLING

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest solar cycle of the past two centuries. They say this will likely lead to unusually cool conditions on Earth. It is also predicted that this cool period will go much longer than the normal 11 year cycle, as the Little Ice Age did. The climate threat is actually cooling, especially to countries like Canada. On the northern limit to agriculture in the world, very little cooling would likely destroy much of its food crops.

The Little Ice Age—the coldest period in the past 1500 years—corresponded perfectly with the Maunder Minimum. There was virtually no sunspot activity for almost seven decades in the Maunder Minimum(per Willie Soon/ Harvard/Astrophysics). It turns out that for those 60-70 years the northern half of our globe was in a deep freeze. The New York harbor froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and the Vikings abandoned Greenland--a once verdant land that became tundra. In that Little Ice Age, Finland lost 1/3 of its population and Iceland 1/2.

cont.
http://planetdaily.ws/index.php/site/more/77/

 

[Bern80]

Not that I'm a proponent of the man made global warming theory but that wasn't very convincing. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out, but let's give it another go. CLIMATE AND WEATHER ARE NOT THE SAME THING. The author is using a weather phenomena (early snowfalls) to support the theory of climate change. He's using a meteoroligcal event to predict a climatological event. One could as easily make the argument that early snowfall is evidence of an overall warming trend. Why? Because as the temp rises weather conditions become more sporadic and severe.

I also happen to believe in the natural cycles of heating and cooling theories, but apparently this guy hasn't done much research. Right now we are in a natural warming trend and will be for the next 400 years or so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not that I'm a proponent of the man made global warming theory but that wasn't very convincing. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out, but let's give it another go. CLIMATE AND WEATHER ARE NOT THE SAME THING. The author is using a weather phenomena (early snowfalls) to support the theory of climate change. He's using a meteoroligcal event to predict a climatological event. One could as easily make the argument that early snowfall is evidence of an overall warming trend. Why? Because as the temp rises weather conditions become more sporadic and severe.

I also happen to believe in the natural cycles of heating and cooling theories, but apparently this guy hasn't done much research. Right now we are in a natural warming trend and will be for the next 400 years or so.

You are aware that the temperature only changed 1 degree over the last 100 years? A very normal change? As for weather and climate, the enviro whackos do the exact same thing. As I recall Katrina was proof of global warming, even though there has been no repeat of the claimed increased hurricanes and intensity of same.

Kettle and pot, sound familiar?

 

[jillian]

And the melting of the polar ice caps is just a coincidence, I'm sure.

I still haven't figured out why the right is so vested in trying to believe that man doesn't CONTRIBUTE (note, I didn't say cause, I said "contribute") to climate change. Seems to me we should just realistically take steps to lighten our footprint. *shrug*

One would think you guys would like the idea of getting off of foreign oil, at least, since then we wouldn't be putting money into the coffers of the Saudis who then use it to fund the very people we're supposed to be "fighting over there".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And the melting of the polar ice caps is just a coincidence, I'm sure.

I still haven't figured out why the right is so vested in trying to believe that man doesn't CONTRIBUTE (note, I didn't say cause, I said "contribute") to climate change. Seems to me we should just realistically take steps to lighten our footprint. *shrug*

One would think you guys would like the idea of getting off of foreign oil, at least, since then we wouldn't be putting money into the coffers of the Saudis who then use it to fund the very people we're supposed to be "fighting over there".

The "right" has no problem saying man may contribute to a warming of the planet. I have no problem saying it. I DO have a problem with the eco nut jobs that claim we are the main cause and that we can fix something they can not even prove is happening. Once again, a one degree raise in temperature over 100 years is normal. And there is absolutely no credible way to know what will happen in 10 years much less 100. The doomsday crap the eco nuts post preach and chant destroys any dialogue or any potential for discussion.

They are opposed to Nuclear energy, which is safe and which is renewable and which does not contribute to what they claim is causing global warming. They want 1st world nations to commit economic suicide while giving a pass to the 3rd world countries that will be the biggest polluters.They play games, by claiming electric cars are a solution they ignore the reality that the vast majority of electricity is made from coal and oil. They claim we can produce fuel from food, when we need the food we have to feed our populations and the increasing population.

You can't seem to grasp the concept that WE, the 1st world Nations ARE reducing our foot print and have been since the 60's. It continues today in every developed nation. Everyone is working on finding less pollution producing sources of energy and ways to use fossil fuels in a less pollution manner. The danger is NOT us, it is the emerging nations that will use the old processes because they are cheaper and easier to build, maintain and use.

 

[Bern80]

The "right" has no problem saying man may contribute to a warming of the planet. I have no problem saying it. I DO have a problem with the eco nut jobs that claim we are the main cause and that we can fix something they can not even prove is happening. Once again, a one degree raise in temperature over 100 years is normal. And there is absolutely no credible way to know what will happen in 10 years much less 100. The doomsday crap the eco nuts post preach and chant destroys any dialogue or any potential for discussion.

Actually there is. Not over 10 years, but longer periods there are. Past behavior is the best predicter of future behavior. And according to past cycles, unless something truly miraculous happens, whether mand made or not it is going to keep getting warmer.

 

[jillian]

An ice age?? RAFLAMO! Do you ever read anything that isn't written by a rabid right-winger (I checked out your "sources") ... nah, don't answer that

From AOL today...

Scientists Make Dire Forecast for Alaska
By DAN JOLING,AP
Posted: 2007-09-07 0119
Filed Under: Science News
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Sept. 7) - An analysis of 20 years' worth of real-life observations supports recent U.N. computer predictions that by 2050, summer sea ice off Alaska's north coast will probably shrink to nearly half the area it covered in the 1980s, federal scientists say.
Such a loss could have profound effects on mammals dependent on the sea ice, such as polar bears, now being considered for threatened species status because of changes in habitat due to global warming . It could also threaten the catch of fishermen.

In the 1980s, sea ice receded 30 to 50 miles each summer off the north coast, said James Overland, a Seattle-based oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Now we're talking about 300 to 500 miles north of Alaska," he said of projections for 2050.

That's far past the edge of the highly productive waters over the relatively shallow continental shelf, considered important habitat for polar bears and their main prey, ringed seals, as well as other ice-dependent mammals, such as walrus.

The NOAA researchers reviewed 20 computer scenarios of the effects of warming on sea ice, used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its assessment report released this year.

The researchers compared those models with observations from 1979 through 1999, Overland said, and concluded that the summer ice in the Beaufort Sea likely will have diminished by 40 percent, compared with its 1980s area.

The same is likely for the East Siberian-Chukchi Sea region off northwest Alaska and Russia. In contrast, Canada's Baffin Bay and Labrador showed little predicted change.

There was less confidence for winter ice, but the models also predict a sea ice loss of more than 40 percent for the Bering Sea off Alaska's west coast, the Sea of Okhotsk east of Siberia and the Barents Sea north of Norway.

The research paper by Overland and Muyin Wang, a NOAA meteorologist, will be published Saturday in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

The situation is dire for polar bears, said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, who wrote the petition seeking federal protection for the animals.

"They're going to drown, they're going to starve, they're going to resort to cannibalism, they're going to become extinct," she said.

As ice recedes, many bears will get stuck on land in summer, where they have virtually no sustainable food source, Siegel said. Some will try and fail to swim to sea ice, she said.

Bears that stay on sea ice will find water beyond the continental shelf to be less productive, she said, and females trying to den on land in the fall will face a long swim.

"It's absolutely horrifying from the polar bear perspective," she said.

Less sea ice also will mean a changing ecosystem for commercial fishermen and marine mammals in the Bering Sea, Overland said.

With sea ice present, many of the nutrients produced in the ocean feed simple plankton that bloom and sink to the ocean floor, providing rich habitat for crabs, clams and the mammals that feed on them, including gray whales and walrus.

"If you don't have the ice around, the productivity stays up closer to the surface of the ocean," Overland said. "You actually have a change in the whole ecosystem from one that depends on the animals that live on the bottom to one that depends on the animals that live in the water column. So you have winners and losers."

That could mean short-term gains for salmon and pollock, he said. But it also could mean that fishermen will have to travel farther north to fish in Alaska's productive waters, and warm-water predators might move north.

The contribution to warming by greenhouse gas emissions likely is set, he said. Emissions stay in the atmosphere for 40 to 50 years before the ocean absorbs them. The amount emitted in the past 20 years and the carbon dioxide put out in the next 20 will linger, Overland said.

"I'm afraid to say, a lot of the images we are going to see in the next 30 to 40 years are pretty much already established," he said.

 

[Bern80]

An ice age?? RAFLAMO! Do you ever read anything that isn't written by a rabid right-winger (I checked out your "sources") ... nah, don't answer that

From AOL today...

I think you're missing the point just a little, well my point anyway. I don't know too many people who don't beleive the Earth is getting warmer. It is and will continue to.

What is required I beleive is a healthy dose of perspective and ask some really different questions based on what we know. We know, for a fact, that the Earth is getting warmer. We know, for a fact, that the Earth's climate fluctuates in cycles, cycles that are anywhere from a few hundred to a thousand or more years long. The question is, is if this has happened before in human history why are we so worried about it now? Basically why is our perspective of this issue what it is? Couple answers off the top of my head would be we didn't have the ability to grasp what was happening 300 years ago. Our perspective also has a lot to do with our culture. If there is one thing that defines U.S. culture it is that we are now an instant gratification society. That culture has come into being within this half cycle or so of climate change. That culture has caused many to adopt the mentality that anything that deviates from what we perceive as normal (i.e. gosh it seems hotter this summer than when I was kid (simplified but hop you get the point)) is thought of as bad or unnatural.

No single species on this planet has been around forever. hundred of thousands maybe millions of different forms of plant or animal life have come and gone throughout the course of Earth's history. But in human history very few, realitvely speaking, have.

The point is you have to acknowledge and maybe even resarch as a possibilty that this was gonna happen anyway. That even if there was no human emitted CO2 the ice caps may still melt and polar bears may still become extinct.

 

[jillian]

I think you're missing the point just a little, well my point anyway. I don't know too many people who don't beleive the Earth is getting warmer. It is and will continue to.

What is required I beleive is a healthy dose of perspective and ask some really different questions based on what we know. We know, for a fact, that the Earth is getting warmer. We know, for a fact, that the Earth's climate fluctuates in cycles, cycles that are anywhere from a few hundred to a thousand or more years long. The question is, is if this has happened before in human history why are we so worried about it now. Basically why is our perspective of this issue what it is? Couple answers off the top of my head would be we didn't have the ability to grasp what was happening 300 years ago. Our perspective also has a lot to do with our culture. If there is one thing that defines U.S. culture it is that we are now an instant gratification society. That culture has come into being within this half cycle or so of climate change. That culture has caused many to adopt the mentality that anything that deviates from what we perceive as normal (i.e. gosh it seems hotter this summer than when I was kid (simplified but hop you get the point)) is thought of as bad or unnatural.

No single species on this planet has been around forever. hundred of thousands maybe millions of different forms of plant or animal life have come and gone throughout the course of Earth's history. But in human history very few, realitvely speaking, have.

The point is you have to acknowledge and maybe even resarch as a possibilty that this was gonna happen anyway. That even if there was no himan emitted CO2 the ice caps may still melt and polar bears may still become extinct.

What I acknowledge is that there are natural cycles. What you have to acknowledge is that the abuse we have heaped on our planet has accelerated and exacerbated those cycles.

My idea... act responsibly. That does not mean being extrene and moving into a geodome. It does mean that we need to explore alternative energies and wean ourselves from fossil fuels.

 

[Bern80]

What I acknowledge is that there are natural cycles. What you have to acknowledge is that the abuse we have heaped on our planet has accelerated and exacerbated those cycles.

Again the point is what do we know. And the latter half of that statement we don't know. We don't know to what extent, if any, what we're doing is causing the temperature to rise. I encourage you not to 'heap' overall polluting into the climate change debate. They are relatively seperate issues. One could even argue that in terms of preservation of the human a little extra heat isn't a bad thing. Again perspective, cause it isn't global warming that's a gonna kill a lot of people. It's global cooling.

My idea... act responsibly. That does not mean being extrene and moving into a geodome. It does mean that we need to explore alternative energies and wean ourselves from fossil fuels.

Of course, but you got guys like Gore and DiCaprio out in left field proclaiming the sky is falling when it isn't. And as was alluded to earlier the real problem of adding to the problem 20 years from now isn't go to be the U.S. or many other 1st world countries. We're already on the downslope in terms of makeing things better for the environment than they were. If Gore and his ilk want to scare people into change, he should be lecturing in the countries that are starting to become more heavily industrialized

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not that I'm a proponent of the man made global warming theory but that wasn't very convincing. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out, but let's give it another go. CLIMATE AND WEATHER ARE NOT THE SAME THING. The author is using a weather phenomena (early snowfalls) to support the theory of climate change. He's using a meteoroligcal event to predict a climatological event. One could as easily make the argument that early snowfall is evidence of an overall warming trend. Why? Because as the temp rises weather conditions become more sporadic and severe.

I also happen to believe in the natural cycles of heating and cooling theories, but apparently this guy hasn't done much research. Right now we are in a natural warming trend and will be for the next 400 years or so.

I agree that climate and weather are not the same thing. I also am not a proponent of man-made global warming either. This global cooling theory is interesting, however. I agree with you the first author was using meteorlogical events (early snowfalls) to support his case. However, the second author was using sunspot activity to support his case of climate change.

Nigel Weiss(Mathematical Astrophysics/Cambridge) states that “Variable behavior of the sun is an obvious explanation.” He admits that we are now living in a period of abnormally high solar activity, and that these hyperactive periods do not last long(50-100 years), then you get a crash. “It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.” And when the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically.

Dr. Kukla(Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences) say he and many others realize that global warming always precedes an ice age. Each lasts about 100,000 years, punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called interglacials. We are in an interglacial now. This ongoing cycle closely matches cyclic variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun. Kukla says “The relationship is just too clear and consistent to allow reasonable doubt. It’s either that, or climate drives orbit, and that just doesn’t make sense.”

No one knows when a ‘crash’ will occur, but scientists expect it soon. Mainly because the sun’s polar field is now at its weakest since measurements began in the 1950’s. A deep crash last occurred in the 17th century—and it was the Little Ice Age, or the Maunder Minimum. “Having a ‘crash’ would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the earth’s climate,” concludes Dr. Weiss. “Then we will be able to act on fact, rather than from fear.”

I've also heard that global warming results in glacier water melting which in turn cools the southern oceans which in turn results in less heat transferring to the northern latitudes via the ocean currents resulting in hard winters.

I'm not sure how you can confidently predict the next 400 years. As far as I know, nobody has a real handle on what the climate will do.

 

[Bern80]

I'm not sure how you can confidently predict the next 400 years. As far as I know, nobody has a real handle on what the climate will do.

Well the main reason I'm confident in that is that according to research that's about where we are in the warming/cooling cycle. There are major fluctuations in in temperature on the planet roughly every 1500 years or so with less violent cycles in between of shorter periods. There is little reason to think that something that has been happening consistently for tens of thousands of years won't continue to hold true.

 

[Darwin]

Not that I'm a proponent of the man made global warming theory but that wasn't very convincing. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be pointed out, but let's give it another go. CLIMATE AND WEATHER ARE NOT THE SAME THING. The author is using a weather phenomena (early snowfalls) to support the theory of climate change. He's using a meteoroligcal event to predict a climatological event. One could as easily make the argument that early snowfall is evidence of an overall warming trend. Why? Because as the temp rises weather conditions become more sporadic and severe.

I also happen to believe in the natural cycles of heating and cooling theories, but apparently this guy hasn't done much research. Right now we are in a natural warming trend and will be for the next 400 years or so.

It seems like many people posting on "Science and Technology" are not at all interested in "Science and Technology" as much as backing a wasteful lifestyle without understanding the material they are trying to do so with?

 

[Bern80]

It seems like many people posting on "Science and Technology" are not at all interested in "Science and Technology" as much as backing a wasteful lifestyle without understanding the material they are trying to do so with?

You imply that I am trying to support a wasteful lifestyle (which you don't know to be, nor is true) simply because I don't buy into the idea that man is a major factor in climate change?

 

[dilloduck]

Actually there is. Not over 10 years, but longer periods there are. Past behavior is the best predicter of future behavior. And according to past cycles, unless something truly miraculous happens, whether mand made or not it is going to keep getting warmer.

Do you consider a volcano spewing out mega-tons of earth cooling ash and gasses to be "miraculous" ?

 

[Bern80]

Do you consider a volcano spewing out mega-tons of earth cooling ash and gasses to be "miraculous" ?

Not particularily. This cycle has stood the test of time. Again it has continued for tens of, if not hundreds of thousands of years, volcanoe erruptions included. The cycle itself is 1500 hundred years long. A volcanoe erruption, which would change temperatures in just a small part of the world would disrupt the cycle for what? 10 years at most?

So, in answer to your implied question, no a major volcanoe erruption is not going to have a siginificant impact on the cycle.

 

[CharlestonChad]

You are aware that the temperature only changed 1 degree over the last 100 years? A very normal change? As for weather and climate, the enviro whackos do the exact same thing. As I recall Katrina was proof of global warming, even though there has been no repeat of the claimed increased hurricanes and intensity of same.

Kettle and pot, sound familiar?

Actually, we've already had 2 cat 5 hurricanes this season, which is abnormal.

 

[dilloduck]

Not particularily. This cycle has stood the test of time. Again it has continued for tens of, if not hundreds of thousands of years, volcanoe erruptions included. The cycle itself is 1500 hundred years long. A volcanoe erruption, which would change temperatures in just a small part of the world would disrupt the cycle for what? 10 years at most?

So, in answer to your implied question, no a major volcanoe erruption is not going to have a siginificant impact on the cycle.

It may not effect the cycle but you gotta admit that we're only concerned about it's effect on humans. With the human population explosion and interdependency issues regarding the growth, production and transportation of food a cataclysmic eruption could easliy cause a greater and more immediate chaos than any gradual and cyclical change.

 

[CharlestonChad]

As a marinebiology major, I've studied a good bit about climate change and the likes. From what I've found, most scientists acknowledge Earth is warming, but there is no consensus about mankind's input. What we do know is that burning fossil fuels is harmful to our environment, and makes the world a less enjoyable place for everyone and everything. So even if the zealous environmental pundits are going overboard with the doomsday claims, we (humans) still desperately need to change our ways before we further damage our planet.


Regarding the 1 degree argument, anyone that uses that likely hasn't done too much research behind it. The charts show hockeystick graphs of temp measurement, so claiming that 1 degree change is nothing would be futile compared to the other arguments one could make towards limited the blame humans get for climate change.

 

[dilloduck]

As a marinebiology major, I've studied a good bit about climate change and the likes. From what I've found, most scientists acknowledge Earth is warming, but there is no consensus about mankind's input. What we do know is that burning fossil fuels is harmful to our environment, and makes the world a less enjoyable place for everyone and everything. So even if the zealous environmental pundits are going overboard with the doomsday claims, we (humans) still desperately need to change our ways before we further damage our planet.


Regarding the 1 degree argument, anyone that uses that likely hasn't done too much research behind it. The charts show hockeystick graphs of temp measurement, so claiming that 1 degree change is nothing would be futile compared to the other arguments one could make towards limited the blame humans get for climate change.

Intersting that you choose to ignore all the benefits to humanity that were a direct result of energy produced by burning fossil fuels.